Proposed IRT Joint Statement with ALAC

[Kathy Kleiman]

> Kathy, is the final version of the alac-ncuc statement available already?
>
> --c.a.
Good morning Carlos and NCUC,
Yes, the ALAC-NCUC statement that the wonderful group of ALAC and NCUC
negotiated last night is available.
This draft is now being reviewed by ALAC. It is very similar to the one
we circulated in NCUC yesterday - with clearer privacy
language courtesy of Katiza, and a number of general edits from ALAC.
Overall, the key points are the same, and it was
a good and constructive joint editing session yesterday:

JOINT STATEMENT (still in draft)

The At-Large Community, the At-Large Advisory Committee and the
Non-Commercial Users Constituency of ICANN strongly support the creation
of new gTLDs. Having said that, the process to move forward with changes
to the Draft Applicant's Guidebook requires the legitimacy of full
community participation and full transparency.

In the case of the IRT Report, we had neither transparency nor openness.
The IRT Report and its recommendations harm the interests of domain name
Registrants and Internet end users, and consequently we must object to
the vast bulk of its recommendations.


To be more specific:

1. The Globally Protected Marks List – the GPML database- is a matter
well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence. It presumes to be
able to resolve an issue that continues to divide full-time trademark
experts.

2. The attempt to create the GPML has already revealed numerous
substantial challenges; its development has the strong potential to
delay, rather than to speed, the implementation of new gTLDs.

3. The GPML takes no consideration of the actual limits of rights and
protections allowed to trademarks. In the real world, trademark owners
apply for a trademark in a specific class of goods and services, and
their use is bound to that class or classes and subject to territorial
and other well known recognized limitations. In particular, trademark
law does not regulate non-commercial speech. By protecting a string of
letters in all new gTLDs, the GPML would extend trademarks into new
gTLDs far beyond the bounds of their class of goods and services, far
beyond existing national laws and international treaties.


3. We have serious issues with the Uniform Rapid Suspension Service
(URS) as proposed. For instance, the URS mechanism subverts conventional
UDRP practice  as it gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the
registrant of the pending dispute. Thus, the registrant is unfairly
limited in his/her right of response and the process is missing the
fundamental principle of due process.


4. We are opposed to the IRT proposal´s policy recommendation to move to
a Thick Whois without doing a privacy analysis, nor taking into account
national laws nor International Privacy Standards, such as 1980 OECD
Guidelines, the Privacy Convention 108 and the EU Data Protection
Directive.

Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had
delivered a balanced proposal for the protection of trademarks and
privacy. But the product delivered is far outside the scope and core
competence of ICANN, and outside the bounds of trademark and privacy law.

We can do better; we must do better. In its current form, the IRT
proposal is unacceptable.






Signed



ALAC

NCUC



__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________*


>
> Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> For discussion purposes a little later in our meeting today, here is
>> a DRAFT Joint Statement on the IRT Report between NCUC and ALAC.
>> It would be very nice if, at the Board Public Forum on Thursday, we
>> could go up together with ALAC to make a strong joint statement.
>> That would make the Board wake up! :-)
>>
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>> (below in text and attached in Word)
>>
>> DRAFT
>>
>> Joint Statement on the DIRT Report
>>
>>> From ALAC and NCUC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The At-Large Community, ALAC and the Non-Commercial Users
>> Constituency of ICANN strongly support the creation of new gTLDs.
>> Having said that, the process to move forward with changes to the DAG
>> Guidebook requires the legitimacy of full community participation and
>> full transparency.
>>
>> In the case of the IRT Report, we had neither transparency nor
>> openness. The IRT Report and its recommendations harm the interests
>> of domain name Registrants and Internet end users, and consequently
>> we must object to the vast bulk of its recommendations.
>>
>>
>> To be more specific:
>> 1. The Globally Protected Marks List -- the GPML database- is a
>> matter well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence. It presumes
>> to be able to resolve an issue that even WIPO wrestles with. Clearly
>> the creation of the GPML, if even possible, would cause enormous
>> complexity. Instead of speeding up the process of creating new gTLDs,
>> it would introduce delays that would last for years. But the creation
>> of this list must take place outside of ICANN.
>>
>> 2. The GPML takes no consideration of the actual limits of rights and
>> protections allowed to trademarks. In the real world, trademark
>> owners apply for a trademark in a specific class of goods and
>> services, and their use is bound to that class or classes. By
>> protecting a string of letters in all new gTLDs, the GPML would
>> extend trademarks into new gTLDs far beyond the bounds of their class
>> of goods and services, far beyond existing national laws and
>> internationatreaties.
>> 3. We have enormous problems with the Uniform Suspension Service
>> (URS). The URS mechanism subverts conventional UDRP practice as it
>> gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the registrant of the
>> pending dispute. Thus, the registrant is unfairly limited in his/her
>> right of response and the process is missing the fundamental
>> principle of due process.
>>
>>
>> [ Kathy Note: This paragraph below seems to be somewhat controversial
>> within ALAC. I think we will be dropping it. Don't worry, we'll
>> include the statement in our comments -- if you all agree]
>> 4. ALAC and NCUC strongly object to the Thick Whois Registry. In
>> mandating such, the IRT Committee did not address any of the privacy
>> issues that arise from moving personal data from many countries with
>> data protection laws, perhaps, to a single country without data
>> protection. Does ICANN really want to be in a position in which it
>> may be violating national laws?
>>
>>
>> Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had
>> delivered a reasonable proposal for the protection of trademarks. But
>> the product delivered is far outside the scope and core competence of
>> ICANN, and outside the bounds of trademark law.
>>
>> We can do better; we must do better before we move forward.
>>
>> Consequently, NCUC and ALAC stand before this forum together in
>> fundamental opposition to many of the IRT Results.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Signed [for sharing a written cop y of a floor statement with the Board]
>>
>>
>>
>> ALAC NCUC
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________ __________________
>>
>> __________________ __________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>